SB 1062 Was the Best Thing to Happen for Arizona's LGBT Community

Within hours of Arizona's Republican-dominated Legislature's approving a measure that established a legal defense for business owners to discriminate based on a "sincerely held religious belief," thousands of gay-rights advocates flocked to the lush green lawn at the state Capitol in Phoenix.

It was February 21, and they united to demand that Governor Jan Brewer veto Senate Bill 1062, the so-called "Religious Freedom" bill.

Someone in the pack of protesters yelled: "What do we want?!"

"Equal rights!" the congregation shouted back.

"When do we want it?"

"Right now!"

Monica Alonzo

Protesters gather at the Capitol hours after lawmakers approved an anti-gay measure.

The verbal volley continued, as did rousing impromptu speeches.

"You have states in this country that recognize same-sex marriage . . . and what does Arizona do? We go backward in time!" Senator Steve Gallardo roared into the crowd surrounding him. "It is time for us to send a loud message to every member in the Legislature [who] voted for these hateful bills . . . We are not going to stand around and watch this type of discrimination . . . targeting the LGBT community."

Protesters gathered at the Capitol daily to decry what quickly was dubbed anti-gay legislation.

Brewer's veto didn't come until February 26 -- and as she pondered her decision, Arizona was publicly shamed daily by news outlets and political pundits across the country and internationally. Even right-wing commentators on Fox News called the bill "political overreach" and likened it to old Jim Crow laws in the South that discriminated against African Americans.

It didn't take much political courage for Brewer to reject the powerful lobby of the religious right. She was urged to do so by fellow Republicans (including both of Arizona's U.S. senators), faced the state's potential loss of the Super Bowl in 2015, and received extreme pressure from the business community, including from corporate giants like Apple, the National Football League, Verizon, and American Airlines.

At the end of the day, Brewer did not publicly buy claims that business owners' religious freedoms were jeopardized.

"Senate Bill 1062 does not address a specific or present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona. I've not heard of one example in Arizona where a business owner's religious liberties has been violated," Brewer stated at a press conference, moments after her veto. "The bill is broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences."

Outside, as word of Brewer's veto spread across the lawn, jubilant cheers erupted from the throng of protesters -- they shed tears, embraced, and pumped fists in the air.

We Recommend

If a homosexual or lesbian is living their life with other knowing and willing adults and not not harassing others about it and not pushing their views of sexuality on others, then it’s their life. late astronaut’s Sally K. Ride alleged lesbianism. If it’s true she was lesbian, astronaut Sally K. Ride kept her sex life to herself and her adult lesbian lovers and did not push her view on others. Astronaut Sally K. Ride had talent as a physicist and astronaut and she did not push her views on others if it’s true she was a lesbian. I would still differ with her sex life, but @least she is not telling me what to think so I would have no issue with her. What I am against are homosexuals and lesbians who push their views on others who differ with them & censor people who see something wrong with gay/lesbian conduct.

With ‘homophobic’, homophobia is telling truths which offend homosexual groups. Truth with homosexuality is any ideas, speculations and truths which offend homosexual groups is condemned as homophobia as there’s ideology on this. Finally, sex change maimings which is mutilating some1 to make them fake members of opposite sex is comparable to trying to make a man a fake animal because he thinks he is an animal trapped in a human body. Most feminists are not speaking against this. 1 would hope that feminists would oppose the mutilation that happened to Chastity Sun Bono as feminists have spoken against Female Genital Mutilation which happens in some nations. Transexuals are mutilations which no Dr. should take part in, yet most feminists are not condemning this female genital and breast mutilation as what happened to Chastity S. Bono where her healthy breasts were mutilated, dangerous hormone shots and her genitals mutilated.

The day that "rights" included the right of some to force others to enter into business arrangements with them was a day when the idea of rights further lost any meeting it once had in the US. Freedom of association is also the freedom not to associate. Religion should not have anything to do with it, and in fact, you'll see that they're individually listed in the first amendment.

This "right" to coerce others will be used in novel and unjust ways that the people cheering today would never have expected, and will surely regret.

Just because someone is a bigot doesn't mean he doesn't have the same rights of association (including the negative right) that others do. If I were in the shoes of those backing the right to coerce others into unfree association, I would rather know who those bigots are, so I could choose not to associate with them. Because of these new "rights," the bigots will skulk around with more stealth than they already do today, and well-meaning people will find themselves dealing with such distasteful people they otherwise may have been able to avoid.

The religious right are poisoning their own well. People, especially educated young people, are staying away from organized religion altogether because of the hypocrisy and hate displayed by people like the Westboro Baptists and the nitwit Republicans in Arizona (and of course, Michele Bachmann). The religious right in this country don't represent the true spirit of either the Republican party or Christianity. They are very little better than fundamentalist Muslim terrorists.

It's gay/lesbian groups who have been pushing Laramie Project and the movie Milk in public schools. Methew Wayne Shepard does not deserve hero worship . Do you see something wrong with what Harvey B. Milk did to that 16 year old boy in 1964? There are ugly truths of who gay icons Methew Wayne Shepard and Harvey B. Milk were. Being a murder victim doesn’t change that. I read Book of Matt by Stephen Jimenez about Methew Wayne Shepard. The book discloses ugly truths of who the victim was-most of it old news such as him being a junky (old news), but the new information is that the victim was a drug dealer. Stephen Jimenez who is gay interviewed over 100 witnesses and found ugly truths about the victim. While Stephen Jimenez has a pro-gay bias and tried to be sympathetic to the victim, he wrote ugly truths including in Shepard's family.

-Metthew W. Shepard was himself a victim of child molestation and when Metthew W. Shepard was 15 years old, he was arrested for molesting 2 neighborhood 8 year old boys-M.W. Shepard got counseling for it.

M.W. Shepard in August 1998 (2 months before his death) attempted indecent exposure on a Cody bartender and bartender defended himself by decking M.W. Shepard. The next day, M.W. Shepard falsely accused the bartender of homosexual gang rape. When medical tests disproved M.W. Shepard, the excuse Methew W. Shepard gave to cops was that he was drunk, had PTSD and could not remember. M.W. Shepard was also once banned from a bar after a drunk M.W. Shepard committed assault and battery on the bouncer by grabbing bouncer’s crotch against will. M.W. Shepard should have been arrested and convicted by jury for those 2 incidents.

-M.W. Shepard knew his killer A.J. McKinney and there are witnesses who saw both of them together numerous almost a year before he was killed. M.W. Shepard had a secret life as a drug courier/dealer. You don’t always know the secrets friends and family have. If a person is a drug dealer, then they are usually not going to tell their friends and family that they do this. But for me, him being killed and why he was killed is a minor topic. While gay groups complain about Stephen Jimenez saying the murder case is complicated and possibly not a hate crime, I think that is incidental-main reason gay groups are offended by Stephen Jimenez’s book is because he talked about the ugly truths about who M.W. Shepard was.

The weak criticism people make is that Stephen Jimenez interviewed drug dealers, junkies, and that he went into bars where drugs were sold, to learn about M.W. Shepard being a drug dealer. That is a weak criticism because that is who Stephen Jimenez would have to interview to learn this. M.W. Shepard being a junky is old news as he had told his friends such as Tina LaBrie about his drug problems and M.W. Shepard’s lover Tristan (Ted) Henson admits that M.W. Shepard used drugs and that he knew 1 of his killers. M.W. Shepard being a drug dealer was something he likely kept secret from his friends and family because honestly, if a person is selling drugs, they usually aren’t going to tell their friends and family that they commit this crime. Even if Metthew W. Shepard did tell his friends and family that he sold drugs, don’t think his family will admit this ugly truth about him, as they had tried to hide the fact that M.W. Shepard molested 8 year old boys and got counseling for it.

While adding new "law" (bills), hundreds and thousands a year is not a good thing, the premise of this one was sincere.

Heaven forbid that a Christian in business to make cakes to sell isn't SUED out of everything they own because they decline to make a perverted lgbt themed cake!

Or heaven forbid a photographer declines to take part in the God mockery of a "lesbian wedding".

You know. These filthy people can always go find someone else willing to partake in their wickedness for filthy lucre's sake. But no. This is about the right to FORCE their wickedness upon the innocent.

How about following THE LAW of Leviticus 20:13 KJV?That is established by God but is ignorantly not enforced by our wicked government.

Monica, SB1062 was NOT a resurrected bill from last year. It was materially different and much more far reaching than last year's SB1178. The bill last year did NOT attempt to expand the definition of person to include any and all business enterprises and organizations.

@godgunsgutsglory1 I have a problem with your statement "It made the LGBT seem like a retarded midget!"

The word "retarded" is hurtful and dehumanizing to individuals with intellectual disabilities. A dwarf is an extremely short adult who is less than 58 inches tall. The word midget is considered derogatory and offensive. So your statement implies that you make derogatory, offensive and dehumanizing statements. Would anyone expect someone like you to care about the LGBT community or even any of your relatives or people you love if they were in the slightest way different then your perceived "normal"? So to see that you have negative thoughts about the LGBT community is no different than the negative thoughts that you have in general. Waste of typing I know... enjoy the bubble of life you've created for yourself.

@dogbiter I know but had to write it. Heros for homosexuals are cowards such as homosexual stautory rapist coward Harvey B. Milk. With Harvey B. Milk homosexual/lesbian groups such as Laramie Project, Shepard Foundation and Big Island Chronicle Tiffany Camille Edwards Hunt see nothing wrong with Harvey B. Milk committing homosexual statutory rape on a 16 year old boy and there’s a holiday after him in California.

@dogbiter If? The point is that GOP claims that SB1062 was "virtually identical" to last year's bill were designed to impose a stupor on corporate media (of which NT is part) to further the narrative that the controversy was drummed up by opponents who distorted the truth about SB1062.

"Understand how to use language." Do you mean other than to just try to demonstrate that you (dog biter) are superior, rather than understand the underlying message (communication, point)?

Which of the two might be a better use of language?

Btw, the "ideological bandwagon" specifically seems to be an incorrect use of language.

Not that you deserve the respect, but I'll give it to you anyway. The whole idea of my original comment was to shed further light on the subject about which Ms Alonzo wrote. She and others who have reflected editorially on the recent controversy have provided very interesting insight.

None, however, has recognized that the claim which Yarbrough, Herrod and some of the Republicans that voted on it have made, that the bill was "virtually identical" to last year's SB1178, was a false claim obviously intended to serve as a shiny object.

@arizonaeagletarian@dogbiter My point, dick, still holds... every facet of a bill doesn't have to be the same for it to have been resurrected. Get off the ideological bandwagon and try to understand how to use language.